dismissed EB-1A

dismissed EB-1A Case: Software Architecture

📅 Date unknown 👤 Individual 📂 Software Architecture

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the initial denial, as required by regulation. The petitioner indicated they would submit a brief within 30 days but failed to do so, resulting in a procedural dismissal without a review of the merits.

Criteria Discussed

Not specified

View Full Decision Text

MATTER OF C-M-C-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 27,2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software architect, seeks classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The 
appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides, in pertinent part, that we "shall summarily dismiss 
any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal." The Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form 1-290B, does not contain an 
explanation of the reasons for appeal. In Part 3 of the Form I-290B, "Information About the Appeal 
or Motion," the Petitioner checked the box that reads: "I am filing an appeal to the [Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO)]. My brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 
30 calendar days of filing the appeal." However, as of today's date, over six months after the 
Petitioner filed his appeal in December 2015, he has not supplemented the appeal. 
In the denial, the Director discussed the evidence in the record and found that the Petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. In this case, the Petitioner has not 
identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision. The mere 
filing of a Form I-290B, without specifically identifying an error in the decision, does not trigger an 
analysis ofthe criteria or a review ofthe Director's decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
As the Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, 
we must dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofC-M-C-, ID# 8769 (AAO June 27, 2016)

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.